>Michiel said > In the light of issue 5150, I have changed this to showing the script of > the action attached to the Message, together with the whole notation > possible for Messages as specified in the UML standard. There is the > added complexity that the notation on sequence diagram is not supposed > to show sequence numbers, like on the collaboration diagram.
Here is a couple of shortcuts for anyone interested in seeing the current effect of the notation change with the new sequence diagrams This is an example old style sequence diagram http://argouml.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/1779/sorter.png This is a converted sequence diagram using the changed notation http://argouml.tigris.org/nonav/issues/showattachment.cgi/1780/sorter-converted.png If the notation used previously was incorrect then we could do some interpretation on modify the model on load with our XSL mechanism. Even based on this single example then I think it is more complex then just moving the message name to the action name. What is the user had just entered some textual description? I'm not against doing what interpretation we can though. Perhaps looking for the pattern that looks like a method name and moving just that part to the action. If someone can give some suggestions then I can try to implement the xsl. For on-diagram editing do you think we can ever really interpret the users entry with a single input field? Would we do better to break this into its constituent parts with a text input for each? I see your difficulties in finding clear guidance in the spec To take some examples from UML spec 1.4.2 - 5.60.2 Fig 88 appears to be displaying the message name Fig 89 appears to be displaying the action I'd expect UML spec 1.4.2 - 5.63.2 to explain the full notation of a message but it is sadly lacking I'll look at some other tools and see how they manage this. Regards Bob. 2008/12/14 Michiel van der Wulp <[email protected]>: > Hi *, > > A summary of my thoughts around this matter... > > Related to the latest remarks on issue 5030. > > In the previous sequence diagrams, and also sequence2, up to revision > 16316, the text shown above a Message was the name of the Message. > > In the light of issue 5150, I have changed this to showing the script of > the action attached to the Message, together with the whole notation > possible for Messages as specified in the UML standard. There is the > added complexity that the notation on sequence diagram is not supposed > to show sequence numbers, like on the collaboration diagram. > > However, IMHO the UML standard is very unclear about the requirements... > Issue 952 contains a nice summary of the requirements for the text shown > above a Message by Alex B., although also he was unsure about how to > combine contradictory requirements: > > «we should have something like: > name of operation or signal + > arg. val.s and expressions + > return type and value (optional: if the return message is hidden) + > sequence number (optional) + > guard contition (optional) > > All of this has to be derived by the associations in the meta-model. > Actions play an important role (...) > > The section on collaboration diags gives a more complete treatment: > from page 3-121 > sections > 3.71.2.2 Arrow Label > 3.71.2.5 Signature > 3.71.4 Example > > the user should also be able to enter a simple text label such as "get > invoice", or "hang up phone". > but this should disable all of the above machinery so that you don't get > the current situation of (possible) incoherence. > I think this will be the case where the diagram is a specification-level > one. > there will be Messages and classifier roles, assoc. roles; but no > stim's, links, objects, actions etc.» > > > Let me try to simplify my problem: > > The text shown above the Message maps on the model as follows - 3 > possibilities - in UML speak: > 1. The Name of the Message itself. > 2. The Name of the Operation or Message attached to the Action of the > Message. > 3. The Body of the Script of the Action. > > > Up until now, ArgoUML only supported case 1. > I tested Papyrus, they use 1. > Some input about other tools would be welcome! > > > Interpreting the UML standard is difficult, in one place you would read > to support 2, in another 3. > I have been reading the UML 2.1.2 standard, too. This is still quite new > to me, but I think I found a place where case 2 is specified. > > As Alex said: «the user should also be able to enter a simple text label > such as "get invoice", or "hang up phone"», so option 3 is surely needed. > > > How should this be implemented? > I am considering several possibilities. > > I told Bob that it would be best to copy the Message.name from sequence > 1 diagrams to the Message.Action.Script.Body of sequence 2 diagrams, so > that the texts still appear on the diagram. Is this the best way? > > This led me to come up with this algo: > Why don't we keep the 3 fields in sync with a smart algorithm, and show > the most complex one? > > Any input is welcome. > > Regards, > Michiel > > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=984023 > > To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: > [[email protected]]. > ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=984690 To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].
